Hey now...
Quake3arena will be based on a JIT compiler..
it will be using one binary for the server part, and one for client part
computing(not gfx).

It will be written in ansi C, pre-compiled into a binary form, then compiled at
runtime for each system, using the internal C processor in quake 3...
it will all be based on LCC.

Well, JIT in games, of course :-)


Ray Gardener wrote:
> 
> Nathan Kopp wrote in message <370AE1F3.3DC4D6A3@Kopp.com>...
> >Ray Gardener wrote:
> >>
> >> Agreed, supporting all those CPUs is bothersome. But
> >> gcc does it, the templates are mature, and we can tweak
> >
> >Does gcc support EVERY cpu?  The core of POV is supposted to be completely
> >platform independent ...
> >
> >Therefore any bytecode interpreter that is part of the core must also be
> >platform independent... JIT compilers could be extra for each system...
> >but the functionality would still exist for EVERY system.
> 
> If a JIT is truly fast enough (does anyone have benchmarks
> from that JavaRays program?) then that would be great. But
> if not... and let's face it, for all of fuss over JITs,
> they haven't had any real impact on day-to-day computing.
> When I see JITs used for commercial video games, then
> I'll be impressed. And how much RAM did Sun say their JIT
> needed? Tons and tons? Insane.
> 
> The irony is, that if a new instruction set appears, one
> still needs to ultimately port something. For the same amount
> of work, you may as well just port a native-code compiler.
> The bytecode interpreter might be available, but I don't think anyone
> would seriously use it. I'd sooner buy hardware supported
> by a JIT instead of run bytecode (because hardware is now
> so cheap these days). But if I'm doing that, I'll opt
> for the hardware that's natively supported, and get even
> more speed.
> 
> With raytracing, there's never a point where the
> system is 'fast enough'. Even if gigahertz machines
> were common, we'd still need every last bit of performance.
> If the pics we're doing today render quickly, we'll
> start doing more complex scenes. And then there's movies,
> which need tons of frames, etc. It's not like accounting,
> were there's only so much math a transaction can involve.
> 
> So Ron's saying gcc's code can't be used to improve POV.
> Well, that sure strikes a blow for the open source
> movement. What a collosally wasted opportunity.
> 
> Ray

-- 
//Spider
        [ spi### [at] bahnhofse ]-[ http://www.bahnhof.se/~spider/ ]
What I can do and what I could do, I just don't know anymore
                "Marian"
        By: "Sisters Of Mercy"

Post a reply to this message